Loretta Mikus

The grievor, a cook at a correctional facility, filed grievances regarding the employer's failure to offer him overtime and a five-day suspension for a verbal altercation with an inmate.

The arbitrator dismissed the overtime grievances, finding no contractual obligation for the employer to schedule overtime.

Regarding the discipline, the arbitrator found that while the grievor engaged in a verbal altercation and used profanity, the allegation of a racial slur was not substantiated.

The five-day suspension was deemed excessive and replaced with a letter of warning.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the content of the grievance, arguing that the union attempted to expand its scope by adding allegations of harassment by a co-worker and a Deputy Superintendent.

The union argued that these allegations were components of the harassment and discrimination complained of in the original grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the particulars regarding the co-worker were not entirely unrelated to the grievance and that the issue of improper handling of an inmate's mail could be relevant if it was the result of discrimination or harassment.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for texting on her cell phone while driving a bus with passengers.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the penalty was excessive and seeking a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a prior disciplinary record for the same offence, had signed a condition of continued employment, and demonstrated a lack of remorse and dishonesty throughout the investigation and hearing.

The termination was upheld.

The parties requested a consent order during a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the consent order, directing the Employer to cease and desist all criminal records checks of Local 1750 bargaining unit employees, including investigators in Regulatory Services, until December 20, 2010.

The arbitrator remained seized of the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of a bus driver for texting while driving, the Union objected to the admission of the grievor's cell phone records.

The Employer had obtained the records from Rogers via a subpoena issued by the Board, but had excused the Rogers representative from attending the hearing.

The Union argued this was litigation by ambush, a violation of PIPEDA, and an abuse of process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the objections, finding that the records were arguably relevant, obtained under a valid subpoena (which satisfies PIPEDA exceptions), and that the procedure used did not constitute an abuse of process.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of a grievance, arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the grounds of the original grievance to include three prior suspensions, and alternatively, that challenges to those suspensions were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the original grievance, which alleged improper, unfair, and unreasonable actions jeopardizing the grievor's job security, was broad enough to encompass the three suspensions as part of an ongoing pattern of alleged harassment.

Because the suspensions were considered part of an ongoing allegation of harassment rather than discrete incidents, the grievance was deemed timely.

The employer's motions were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance challenging three disciplinary suspensions given to the grievor.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The grievor argued she did not realize the suspensions were disciplinary and was under stress due to her mother's passing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's explanation unreasonable, noting the disciplinary letters were clear and she had filed grievances previously.

Applying the Becker test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits due to the unreasonable and lengthy delay.

The grievance was dismissed.

During an arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding a summons issued to Rogers, the delivery of requested documents to the employer's counsel, and the employer's failure to produce those records to the union.

The union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with a copy of the summons, details of any communications with Rogers regarding the summons, and the dates of service and receipt of documents.

The Board also permitted the union to confer with the grievor on this issue only.

The grievor was off work due to stress and sought to return to a different work location.

He did not formally request accommodation or provide detailed medical information until June 28, 2007.

The employer subsequently accommodated him in September 2007.

The union grieved that the employer failed to accommodate him earlier.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer was not aware of the need for accommodation and did not have the necessary medical information prior to June 28, 2007.

The grievor, a cashier with 17 years of service, was terminated for theft after failing to ring in a $50.05 bottle of vodka and allegedly pocketing the $50.00 paid by the customer.

The grievor claimed he found the money under the counter and forgot to put it in the safe, only remembering when he pulled out his cell phone later.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected the grievor's explanation, finding based on cell phone records and witness testimony that he only attempted to return the money after being tipped off about a customer complaint.

Given the finding of theft and the grievor's lack of honesty or remorse, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The union alleged that the employer breached a grievance settlement agreement by delaying a job posting and expanding the geographic area of search without disclosing this intention during negotiations.

The settlement had granted the grievor an interview for an upcoming temporary vacancy.

The arbitrator found that while the employer should have disclosed the expanded search area during negotiations, the omission was not in bad faith.

Furthermore, the grievor was granted the interview but failed to meet the minimum scoring threshold, meaning voiding the settlement would provide no practical advantage.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an internal candidate with 20 years of government experience, applied for the position of Northern Development Adviser.

He was screened out at the resume evaluation stage and denied an interview.

The union grieved, arguing the screening process was flawed and the employer failed to properly credit the grievor's past experience in a precursor role.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's assessment of the grievor's resume was incorrect and that he should have received a higher score on several criteria, which would have qualified him for an interview.

The grievance was allowed and the matter remitted to the parties for resolution.

The grievor, a registered nurse at a maximum-security psychiatric facility, was suspended with pay pending an investigation into allegations of patient abuse.

He was ultimately cleared of the allegations but grieved the suspension, arguing the Employer breached its obligation to protect his health and safety under the collective agreement by failing to follow its own investigation policy, which caused him severe emotional distress and damage to his reputation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's decision to suspend the grievor was a reasonable and necessary step to protect vulnerable patients given the serious nature of the allegations, and that the Employer could not have foreseen the grievor's severe reaction.

During a hearing, the parties discussed the exchange of information necessary to proceed with the merits of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with copies of specific unclassified contracts, preceding contracts for two individuals, and documents relating to the assignment of duties and a job offer.

The documents were ordered to be provided for the union representative's exclusive use and returned at the conclusion of the hearing due to confidentiality concerns.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances on the grounds of mootness, arguing that the underlying issues regarding work assignments and job specifications had been resolved through Minutes of Settlement.

The union opposed the motion, asserting that live issues remained, specifically the claim for retroactive compensation for work performed in a higher classification and the policy issue of assigning duties outside of job specifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the doctrine of mootness and found that the specific claim for compensation and the policy issue had not been resolved by the settlements.

The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore denied, and the grievances were directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, who suffered from Bi-Polar Affective Disorder, submitted a letter of resignation shortly after being discharged from an involuntary psychiatric admission.

The employer refused to allow him to rescind the resignation, arguing it was valid and voluntary.

The union grieved, arguing the grievor lacked the capacity to form the subjective intent to resign due to an exacerbation of his mental illness.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was exhibiting classic symptoms of the manic phase of his disorder, which impaired his ability to think rationally and logically.

The Board preferred the evidence of the grievor's treating psychiatrist over the employer's expert, concluding the grievor lacked the capacity to form the intent to resign.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to sick leave status.

The parties reached an agreement on a comprehensive process for the exchange of medical information and documentation regarding grievors claiming physical or mental harm.

At the parties' request, the Grievance Settlement Board issued the agreement as a consent order, detailing the requirements for standard form reports, disclosure of treating health professionals, and the process for resolving disputes over further medical disclosure or WSIB file production.

The Union filed numerous grievances alleging systemic discrimination and the dissemination of threatening and racist letters.

The Employer sought an adjournment of hearing dates scheduled for October, arguing that the Union had delayed the proceedings and that the Employer needed time to prepare its case following a motion on the admissibility of evidence scheduled for September.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment request, finding it premature to cancel hearing dates six months in advance based on a motion that had not yet been heard.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award following a multi-day arbitration hearing.

The Vice-Chair ordered the immediate reinstatement of the grievor to his former position, or alternatively, placement on sick leave benefits if fitness to return to work was an issue.

Full reasons for the reinstatement were to follow.

The Employer brought a motion to limit the scope of two grievances to the specific events described therein, while the Union sought an interim ruling for the disclosure of investigation reports and interview notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the grievances were sufficiently broad to encompass the broader allegations of discrimination, reprisal, and harassment.

The Board granted the Union's request for disclosure, determining the documents were arguably relevant to the issues raised, but imposed strict confidentiality conditions to prevent workplace divisiveness.